PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a diagnosis of PTSD due to a verified stressor event or incident during his service in the Republic of Vietnam, and therefore, cannot establish service connection for PTSD.

The Board found that the veteran's diagnosed PTSD was not related to his active duty service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD warrants a 100 percent evaluation, considering his severe impairment in social and occupational functioning.

The RO denied the veteran's claims for an increased evaluation for PTSD and service connection for athlete's foot.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that there is insufficient evidence to establish a link between his reported in-service stressors and his current diagnosis of PTSD.

The VA determined that the veteran's PTSD does not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher initial rating in excess of 30 percent.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for PTSD and found that new evidence submitted since the previous denial raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. However, the criteria for establishing service connection have not been met.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claimed PTSD due to combat or service stressors, and denied his claim.

The Board found that the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy and his alleged stressors remain uncorroborated. Therefore, the claim for service connection for PTSD is denied.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the criteria for eligibility for VA assistance in purchasing automotive and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only.

The veteran's PTSD is manifested by severe symptoms including depression, nightmares, and hyperarousal. The Board finds that the criteria for a 70 percent evaluation have been met.

The veteran's service-connected PTSD is manifested by distressing intrusive memories, flashbacks, social isolation, withdrawal, irritability, anger outbursts, and sleep disturbance which produce occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family, relations, judgment, thinking or mood. The Board finds that the evidence supports a 70 percent disability rating for PTSD.

The veteran's PTSD is currently manifested by symptoms such as nightmares, panic attacks, difficulty with memory and concentration, nervousness, irritability, limited social contact, the need for continuous medication including sleep aids, and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores ranging from 60 to 80. The RO determined that his July 2003 substantive appeal was not timely filed following a September 1999 denial of service connection for PTSD.

The veteran's PTSD is rated at 50 percent disabling, effective September 12, 1997. The claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD remains pending.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is service-connected based on evidence showing a current diagnosis, credible supporting evidence of an in-service stressor, and a link between the current disability and service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the veteran's claimed stressors and the basis for the diagnosis of PTSD. The AOJ is instructed to verify the in-service stressor related to a sailor jumping overboard, as well as the stressor related to a propeller accident. They are also asked to clarify the basis for the diagnosis of combat-related PTSD.

The VA has granted the veteran's claim of service connection for PTSD, currently rated at 50 percent.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the veteran's PTSD is directly related to his service in Vietnam, and thus grants service connection for PTSD.

The veteran was seen at the Comanche County Memorial Hospital for his service-connected PTSD on an emergent basis due to a threat of self-harm or harm to others. The VA facilities were not feasibly available, and treatment was provided as a medical emergency.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting a VA psychiatric examination.